Perceived Bad Civs: I think because playstyle is such a big factor, what really is needed is for people who have had a problem with a civ to state what that problem is, and supporters of the civ can explain how to play differently to compensate. If there is no way realistically to compensate for a weakness, then it could be agreed that the civ has a weakness. Perceived Strong Civs: Fast power and killer combos can't really be argued with. Although there are ways to counter these strategies, if they can be achieved consistantly, it could be agreed that the civ capable of those options is stronger in balance. So a marks out of 10 rating might not acheive any answers, just a lot of to-and-fro-ing.